Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Yeah, I think Sony was smart in going with the basics. Microsoft was certainly ambitious, but I think part of that ambition was misguided.

I think all that extra tech just adds an extra layer of complexity for things to go wrong, and when they do, becomes a frustrating experience just to be able to do things. This kind of tech seems to be more of a "want" rather than a "need" that MS has forced on people. And in the end, is it really necessary?

As "futuristic" as some of this stuff may seem, from what I've experienced it's just not as reliable as the boring old ways of doing things. I'm left feeling that even with all the improvements to Kinect, it's still not ready from prime time, at least not for some of these features that are on by default.

Microsoft seems to think that gamers play games while sitting perfect straight in a chair in a quiet house. If I played a game where the camera was controlled by head-tracking I would throw up from all the jerky motion in the game.

Yeah, I think Sony was smart in going with the basics. Microsoft was certainly ambitious, but I think part of that ambition was misguided.

I think all that extra tech just adds an extra layer of complexity for things to go wrong, and when they do, becomes a frustrating experience just to be able to do things. This kind of tech seems to be more of a "want" rather than a "need" that MS has forced on people. And in the end, is it really necessary?

I don't fault MS for pushing the envelope. You can't get better if you don't try and they do and they improve.

What i find unacceptable is that they force me to use it even if i don't have any interest in it and would like an option to get the product without it. That feels like shoving it down my throat and i don't support that.

I don't fault MS for pushing the envelope. You can't get better if you don't try and they do and they improve.

Oh, of course. I'm not arguing against that at all. Like I said, their ambitions were misguided, moreso based on the principal. So, in a way, they were pushing the envelope in the wrong direction. A direction that I don't really think will have all that much impact. So, yes, they'll improve, but I don't think the gains will be all that noticeable. I think many would have been happier if they just stuck to making a great console, rather than spending so much development on something few will end up really using. They could for instance have pushed the envelope in other areas.

Their problem is that they trief the Apple aaproach by designing a device no one knew they needed until it was there and people were ripping it out of their hands. Problem is that Apple devices work near perfectly right out of the gate.

MS appear to me to be a company that's haunted by the fact that they lost the smartphone and tablet markets to Apple. They had been trying to spearhead those two niche markets for years, then Apple waltzed in with innovative, simple products and almost completely sidelined MS.

MS believes that Apple are planning to make a major play for the living room in the next few years, a market MS have been successful in breaking into with the Xbox brand, and they don't want to be left out in the cold again. Xbox One is MS's attempt to out-innovate Apple before Apple get a chance, a "revolutionary" device that does everything you tell it to do via easy to use voice commands. But because they had to launch at the same time as the PS4, and because they wanted a head-start on Apple, the technology behind it just isn't good enough yet. It will work acceptably in ideal circumstances, but deviate from them and it becomes a nuisance.

Though I loathe to compliment Apple, I agree with what FPAlpha said, Apple tend to wait until the technology behind their products works near-perfectly before launching to avoid user frustration. MS appears to have jumped the gun out of business necessity.

__________________...so many different suns...

"No one is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away." - The immortal Terry Pratchett

The 3DS and Wii U are keeping me busy, so nope. Plus, there haven't been any (announced) games on either system that appeal to me. If I ever get one, it'll be the PS4 and that's *if* The Last Guardian lands on it.

MS appear to me to be a company that's haunted by the fact that they lost the smartphone and tablet markets to Apple. They had been trying to spearhead those two niche markets for years, then Apple waltzed in with innovative, simple products and almost completely sidelined MS.

Agreed on all points. It's ironic, but I don't really think MS really understands technology, at least on the same level as it has in the past. They're slow to get going, and slow to adapt to trends, and you can spot them flailing around trying to keep their balance. It's like trying to explain the internet to an elderly who's lived in a different era and haven't used a computer before.

Now it's obviously an extreme example, but it feels like MS has aged to the point of not being able to understand current trends. And when they do try to start trends, crickets chirp.

I got an Xbox One for Christmas and am really enjoying it.
The voice command stuff works great once you learn how to enunciate for the system, (I'll never use the motion stuff as my arms weren't designed for that, so no big deal on that front) now I'm just waiting for some of the games I'm excited for to come out, like Watchdogs and Titanfall.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

Microsoft says that the Kinect won't spy on you. But why believe them? Think about it.

Oh no, they're going to see me sitting perfectly still playing video games! Man, those guys at MS must be crazy bored.

I got an Xbox One for Christmas and am really enjoying it.
The voice command stuff works great once you learn how to enunciate for the system, (I'll never use the motion stuff as my arms weren't designed for that, so no big deal on that front) now I'm just waiting for some of the games I'm excited for to come out, like Watchdogs and Titanfall.

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

Microsoft says that the Kinect won't spy on you. But why believe them? Think about it.

Oh no, they're going to see me sitting perfectly still playing video games! Man, those guys at MS must be crazy bored.

Could very well be used. Collect data like amount of time sitting there, watching the screen, etc...

The idea of counting how many viewers watch a film/game/TV for advertisement or even shutting down if there is a license violation.

The idea of recognizing male/female/children for advertisement.

The idea of analyzing and tagging the contents of your living room, again for advertisement.

Analyzing the areas you look at.

Spotify pauses ads when you turn the volume down. Maybe some day your TV will pause ads when you don't look at it.

Etc... etc...

Automated image analysis becomes better and better. It's all going to be used to get more money.

__________________
A movie aiming low should not be praised for hitting that target.

It's not Microsoft who'll be spying on you, it's the Obsidian Order...err, I mean, the NSA they sell the data to who will be spying on you.

I'm totally not on board with this "One experience for all television related matters" push. No, I don't want one group to have full control of the data that appears on my television screen. I want each particular service to be something I choose between multiple providers for, and completely in charge of how each is applied to my 'entertainment experience' Microsoft's trying to make the One the One Gateway To Entertain Them All.

"Hey, look at all these people watching well written sci-fi shows! Maybe we should produce or support more of those instead of relying on this Neilson thing"

And I like the idea that they will also advertize to me. I don't need to see tampon commercials or car commercials. But if I see something I actually MIGHT buy, then that's a good thing for them and me, no? I mean, if we have to live in a world with advertizing anyways, might as well cater it to me and make it worth my while.

It's not Microsoft who'll be spying on you, it's the Obsidian Order...err, I mean, the NSA they sell the data to who will be spying on you.

I'm totally not on board with this "One experience for all television related matters" push. No, I don't want one group to have full control of the data that appears on my television screen. I want each particular service to be something I choose between multiple providers for, and completely in charge of how each is applied to my 'entertainment experience' Microsoft's trying to make the One the One Gateway To Entertain Them All.

Some people don't want to put in the effort for a sometimes small gain and often enough complete packages do tend to end up cheaper than single options when you add everything up.

Additionally in tech you avoid incompabilities that even though standards exists still sometimes cause problems when different devices have to interact with each other when they're not from the same company.

M'rk, son of Mogh wrote:

Can't this whole "spy" paranoia also be a good thing?

"Hey, look at all these people watching well written sci-fi shows! Maybe we should produce or support more of those instead of relying on this Neilson thing"

And I like the idea that they will also advertize to me. I don't need to see tampon commercials or car commercials. But if I see something I actually MIGHT buy, then that's a good thing for them and me, no? I mean, if we have to live in a world with advertizing anyways, might as well cater it to me and make it worth my while.

While it may contain much hyperbole in the Snowden/NSA era it's an issue everyone has to decide for himself. Whenever you visit Amazon and do some searching within moments you can see Amazon adopting your searches and changing their recommendations based on your searches.

Now companies want your money and they will pay through the nose for data about your purchasing habits and your interests because it allows them to tailor their offerings to you and not play the guessing game. This way they increase possible profits and it has become a huge part of commerce. Now even if a company knew all my habits there's nothing they can do when i decide i won't buy, they simply can't force me to so with that aspect there's little danger involved.

The issue though is about privacy and who controls this data and who gets access to it. It's about principle that companies have no right to invade my privacy even if they may pose no physical threat to my life.

With MS and Kinect they invented a device that could easily appear in any Hollywood spy movie and to be honest i don't believe it would be hard for any organization like the NSA to tap into that device and watch you. It's basically a direct access to your living room and while the NSA might not be interested in seeing you in your underwear eating chips and playing some games the potential is there and that's enough to become very alert.

I certainly will not install a camera and microphone connected to the internet in my appartment not because i'm paranoid but because i don't trust any company to protect my privacy at all costs.

Oh no, they're going to see me sitting perfectly still playing video games! Man, those guys at MS must be crazy bored.

It has been pointed out several times in this thread that nobody really believes that anyone at MS will use the Kinect to literally watch us. The issue with Kinect is not that it's a camera, it's that it is a device theoretically capable of analysing human behaviour and activity, creating a log-file of that activity, and sending that file to MS. MS could then sell the collated data on to any interested third parties, or secretly be forced to hand it over to the NSA. A regular webcam cannot do that, nor can the cameras in a phone or tablet. Kinect supposedly could. Although, after having used it, I don't believe it would be reliable in its analysis.

M'rk, son of Mogh wrote:

And I like the idea that they will also advertize to me... I mean, if we have to live in a world with advertizing anyways...

There shouldn't be ads on Xbox Live for paying subscribers in the first place.

__________________...so many different suns...

"No one is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away." - The immortal Terry Pratchett